Text: T1583; 菩薩善戒經

No

[T]  T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.

• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 菩薩善戒經
• People: Guṇavarman, 求那跋摩 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T1583

No

[Funayama 2004]  Funayama Tōru. "The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts by the Chinese in the Fifth Century." Journal of Asian History 38, no. 2 (2004): 97-120. — 112-113 n. 47

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經
• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

"In India, the notion of the bodhisattva precepts [was] known mainly through [BBh, SdhN]....the view of eight pārājikas in Guṇavarman’s translation is rather exceptional....the Youpose jie jing 優婆塞戒經 [T1488] (tr. by Tanwuchen [= *Dharmakṣema]), which prescribes six pārājikas for laymen, refers to eight pārājikas for monks as well (T24, 1035b3-6). That is to say, we can recognize two different views on the number of pārājikas for monks in Tanwuchen's translations: the four pārājikas prescribed in the Pusa dichi jing [菩薩地持經 T1581] and the eight pārājikas mentioned in [T1488]. This fact might have something to do with the origin of the Youpose jie jing."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936]  Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 9, p. 405

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經
• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲 states that the 菩薩善戒經 T1583 in one fascicle and the 菩薩善戒經 T1582 in nine fascicles were originally one text, but became separated as the part that now appears as T1583 was used so often in North China.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

[Ōno 1954]  Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 194-204

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經
• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

Since the Liang 梁 period, the [Pusa] Shan jie jing [菩薩]善戒經 T1582/T1583 has been considered an alternate translation of the [Pusa] Di chi jing [菩薩]地持經 (Bodhisatvabhūmi) T1581. Ōno states that this view is mistaken. The one juan version of the text, T1583, with the alternate title Youpoli wen pusa shou jie jing 優波離問菩薩受戒法 corresponds to juan 5 of T1581. These two texts are almost identical in structure.

Ōno points out that it is odd that T1583 came to be treated as an independent text from T1582. In fact, it should have been included in T1582 as juan 5. [However, note that Ōno also considers another one-juan text with a similar title, which he conjectures was an excerpt of the chapters related to precepts from the full ten-juan text, used as a manual for the actual practice of precepts.] According to Ōno, this oddity started when Jingtai 靜泰 found the one-juan text [T1583], which had long been lost, and listed it as the Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經 in one juan, fifteen sheets, treating the text as a rediscovered lost scripture. On this basis, KYL listed the nine-juan version T1582 and T1583 separately, the former as the alternate translation of T1581, and the latter as an independent scripture.

Catalogues including CSZJJ, GSZ, and other materials ascribe the Shan jie jing 善戒經 [i.e. the totality comprising T1582 and T1583] to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩, and say that it was translated in Yuanjia 元嘉 8 (431).

Ōno introduces traditions about the process of translation of this scripture, though he warns that this information may well be unreliable. According to GSZ, the translation process did not go smoothly, and *Guṇavarman translated only 28 chapters in eight juan (of 30 chapters in ten juan). The remaining two chapters in two juan (序品 and 戒品) were translated by his disciple(s). These two chapters were lost for a time, but later refound, and added back to the text. The resulting ten juan text was titled Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經. The chapter structure was subsequently set by Baochang 寶唱 at imperial behest.

Ōno points out that the Shan jie jing comprising T1582 and T1583 was produced by revision of T1581, to meet a demand for an independent a scripture featuring the precepts. The major points of this revision are: 1) The inclusion of the *Vinayaviniścaya-sūtra(?) 決定毘尼經 T325, ascribed to “the Dunhuang Trepiṭaka” 燉煌三藏 [who is usually identified with Dharmarakṣa] (with modifications) as the introduction 序品; 2) The addition of expressions related to precepts; 3) the addition of conditions to the observance of bodhisatva precepts 菩薩戒; and 4) modifications of the precept clauses. Among these, 3) and 4) appear in T1583. Ōno quotes some of the major additions of precept-related expressions (196-197) and claims that, in light of such significant additions, it is not appropriate to regard the Shan jie jing as an alternate translation of T1581. He adds that the Shan jie jing is a unique case, in which a certain scripture has been transformed into a new one, while preserving the basic structure, and that this unique situation is a reflection of the enthusiastic demand for Māhāyāna precepts.

Sengyou comments, after comparing the Shan jie jing (presumably T1582) and the Pusa di chi jing, that the two texts are largely identical in wording, with minor variations in titles and chapter divisions in a couple of chapters, so that the differences between the two are not sufficient to regard the two texts as alternate translations by different translators, but rather, the two should represent basically the same text; but that the order of the texts differs widely between the two, so that T1582 is actually something of a chaotic shambles (檢此兩本。文句悉同。唯一兩品分品品名小小有異。義亦不殊。既更不見有異人重出。推之應是一經。而諸品亂雜前後參差; T2145 [LV] 63a1-4). Ōno conjectures that this disorder is an indication that T1582/T1583 is a revised version of T1581. He also points out that the story that the 序品 and 戒品 were once lost probably reflects the fact that the *Vinayaviniścaya was not originally included in the 序品, and that the one-juan “version” of the text came free and circulated independently.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit